Budget 2012: The Conservatives' Frankenstein moment

Tax cuts for the top 1%, freezing the minimum wage for people aged under 21, a health bill that GP's do not want and the Granny Tax: are this government trying to make people hate them?

Yesterday's Budget has made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The papers tore into the "same old Tory party" for the removal of the personal allowance for pensioners, but cutting the 50p rate of income tax for people earning over £150,000. Within an hour of the Budget, "granny tax" was trending on Twitter and six years of Conservative modernising has been damaged.

Modernisation was the challenge for Conservatives in the last decade. Their attempts to "detoxify" the brand from a right-wing party for the rich fiercely divided party members. Modernisation gave David Cameron the leadership. Modernisation paved the way for an influx of young, energetic members. It even inspired the change in party logo: from a burning torch in an iron grip to a tree that looks like broccoli.

Today that work is not completely undone but it will require a solid defence. I imagine Conservatives in government have cold sweats at night about headlines such as "Osbourne picks the pockets of pensioners" or "Chancellor clobbers ordinary Brits." The next few days will likely see a flurry of facts and figures and statistics from think-tanks and pollsters, a defence mounted on the economic benefit of a fiscally neutral Budget.

Heads will also turn to the Labour party response. This is what they have been waiting for. It is an opposition's dream to be handed ammunition from the government's own policy. Up to now, Labour have been a weak opposition marred by a lack of direction, an inability to capitalise on unpopular Conservative policy and in-fighting between Team Ed and Team Dave. The polls said it all: an ICM poll for the Guardian on Monday 19 March found that the Tories had a three point lead, despite the passage of the health bill and the leak of the cut in 50p tax.

Labour must take this opportunity and show themselves to be a strong force for scrutiny and opposition. Yesterday was a fine start: Ed Miliband made a good speech, which included a fantastic quip at the Conservative front bench (albeit childish and a bit overdone.)     

The work begins today for Labour as a true champion for the jobless, penniless lower classes. You can picture the campaign adverts now. Images of a pensioner, cold and sad, because she is losing more money under the Coalition. It is raining outside and she stares through her window with a glum face. Cut to what she is looking at: a mansion on the hillside, bright with colour and noise, as the top 1% celebrate their savings of nearly £45,000 by having a money fight ("Look Gideon, flying notes!") 

This is exactly what the Conservatives feared and it is what they will try desperately to avoid. But it might be too late and when it does happen, Tories will have Tories to blame. This was truly a Frankenstein moment. 

Budget 2012: Osbourne's American education

In January 2011, Barack Obama made his second State of the Union address to the House of Representatives. Obama's focus was education and innovation, encouraging investment in science and infrastructure. Today, George Osbourne set out his third Budget as Chancellor. He too made the idea of innovation a recurring theme in his plans.

Osbourne encouraged Britain "to earn its way in the world." This may seem like a soundbyte that will never stick but the message behind this is more important. This Budget has placed focus on young people starting their own businesses, backed by more generous loans for start-ups, tax cuts and government assistance in management structures for young businessowners. What Osbourne is encouraging is people getting out there and working their way out of economic gloom, to push Britain to surpass the BRIC countries. He promotes a society that will roll its sleeves up, get stuck in and lift us out of the rut we currently find ourselves in. . a bit like a country called America.

Founded upon the idea of the American Dream, where if you work you succeed, Osbourne's holiday in the U.S. seems to have openly influenced his Budget. His focus on small business and working families are empowering them as the economy's way out of hardship. There was a time when government would simply increase its safety net, the welfare state, and support those in trouble to ride the storm out. But this time sees a different approach.

Moreover, Osbourne's hope that Britain will become "Europe's technology centre" by giving tax credits for the video game, animation and TV industries draws further parallels with Obama. The Budget 2012 will no doubt make headlines for the cut in the 50p rate of income tax, but less attention will be paid to this: the digital Budget. When Osbourne challenged the universities and the innovators to turn Britain into a hub for technological brilliance. More games, more episodes of Downton Abbey, will play a major part in building our economy. This is Osbourne's American education and time will tell if it was more worthwhile than an Etonian one. 

Spotlight: The soldiers without a safety catch by Giles Fraser

A piece by Giles Fraser in Tuesday 13 March 2012's edition of the Guardian is worthy of a mention on this blog, which I hope to use more often as a way of promoting good, thought-provoking and engaging journalism.

Fraser focuses on the idea that soldiers are "dehumanised" to make them more efficient as killing machines in battle. Elements of their training are scrutinised by Fraser to explore this idea. For example, using realistic figures for shooting practice and the use of violent games and films to remove any sensitivity towards killing.

The piece is a topical one. It comes after the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a lone American soldier has sent shockwaves across the world. And personally, Fraser has touched on an area that I have particular interest in. My ambitions to be a war reporter are no secret; I dedicated a post to this after the death of Marie Colvin. The idea of dehumanised soldiers waging a brutal campaign against opponents, with no emotional or moral attachments sounds like the stuff of a grizzly, Orwellian novel. However like most Orwellian-style novels, the reality is a lot closer to the fiction than you think.

I am not suggesting that soldiers have no moral compass. After all they fight because they have morals. The coalition is fighting a war in Afghanistan because they believe in the right for people to live in a fair, free democracy. My criticism of military training is similar to Fraser's: the removal of the "inbuilt safety catch" harms progress in the battlefield, as opposed to aiding it. But the opinions that the Afghan people currently have of our forces tell the story here. After the aforementioned killings in Kandahar, the people asked why a soldier sworn to defend them would murder them. Yes, this was an isolated incident as the politicians and officials keep stressing. But it cannot be denied that there is a vicious undercurrent of brutality against Afghan citizens that threatens to undermine the good.

It is this good that interests me as a journalist. The dynamic between a peacekeeper and those people who they are keeping the peace for is an interesting one. This relationship has been damaged though. Whether this is because of one man with brain damage or a training programme that removes the human element from people and crafts them into soldiers, is a debate to be had. And when that debate does come, Giles Fraser's piece is a great way to get informed.

Do you have a right to end your life?

Tony Nicklinson describes his life as "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable." This is because he suffers from locked-in syndrome, a condition that has left him paralysed, incapable of speech or movement. He is currently in the midst of a legal battle that has made headlines and news bulletins across the world today. Mr Nicklinson wants the right to die and the High Court have ruled that his case will be heard, despite opposition from the Ministry of Justice. It has brought this question back into society: do you have a right to end your life?

No, is the simple answer. The 1961 Suicide Act states it is illegal for a person to aid or carry out the suicide of another person, no matter the circumstances. In fact, it carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. And this is what Mr Nicklinson is fighting in the courts: he wants to ensure that when his time comes, and he wants to end his life, the person responsible will not be punished. 

The debate around euthanasia is one of the most dividing and passionate in society. Those against it believe life is too sacred to be ended on demand. We, human beings, faced incredible odds to even exist in the first place and the argument is we should "waste" this opportunity. Despite being fully paralysed, Mr Nicklinson has a functioning mind, capable of intelligent thought and killing an intelligent being is an act of murder. This is the point that the Ministry of Justice were seeking to make in court today.

Another argument against assisted dying involves doctors themselves. It is argued that doctors should not have the power to "play God" and kill a man or woman. But don't doctors make this decision everyday, when they ask a family of an ill patient to allow a non-resuscitation order? Is this not a similar situation? Euthanasia is an incredibly serious issue but doctors make decisions based on the medical situation of a patient. Again, this is what will be the next development in the case of Mr Nicklinson: a full hearing in the courts, featuring evidence from medical experts.

The third argument against euthanasia is the "slippery slope." The anti-euthanasia lobby call it "legalised killing" and believe it would set a dangerous precedent. For example, a doctor could kill a patient and say they wanted to die, as a defence. It has even been suggested as (rather sickingly) a cost-cutting measure. A study in 1998 found that doctors, who are conscious of costs would be more likely to give lethal medicine to a terminally-ill patient. At a time of cuts and job losses, as well as a lack of hospital beds and resources, is it too far-fetched to say that euthanasia would be used to curb costs and save the pennies? Not to the critics, no.

The case of Mr Nicklinson has brought this debate back into mainstream media, a good thing in my view. I am personally pro-euthanasia. In a society that promotes the rights of the individual, that argues that human beings have choice over every aspect of their life, whether that is their career, their home, their lifestyle, even their gender, should they not be given the right to control their greatest aspect? Should they not be given that choice? It is your opinion. But as Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane said:

"I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today."

The forum has been opened and let the debate begin.

Marie Colvin's death only strengthens my hope to follow in her footsteps

Marie Colvin's last report from within the besieged city of Homs.

A quick clarification: the title of this blog is not a suggestion that Marie Colvin's death was some kind of martyrdom. I am not saying that I want to be killed in conflict, or glorifying what happened to her, because what happened to her and Remi Ochlik, the French photojournalist, was dreadful.

But it has been my ambition to become a war reporter for several years. One of my journalistic idols is Sky correspondent, Alex Crawford, who I consider to be one of the greatest reporters of her generation. On Tuesday night, I was in attendance when Ms Crawford gave the annual Bob Friend Memorial Lecture at the University of Kent. In it, she said:

"It is necessary for us to be there (Syria), to see what is going on, to witness what is happening and to report live from there. We all feel we have a job to do and an important contribution to make. Women are in the ascendancy in war reporting all over the world. And we shouldn’t even be discussing whether or why. It is important and utterly right."

Marie Colvin was a firm believer in this. She was due to return from Syria in the next few days, but stayed to complete one last story, as she felt there was more for the world to see.

Now the argument being made is that the job is too dangerous. Reporters Sans Frontieres have made the suggestion that women reporters should be withdrawn from Egypt, following incidents of sexual violence and abuse towards them. Ms Crawford made a passionate argument against this, urging journalism not to go back to the attitudes of the 1950's. And she is absolutely right.

The job is dangerous. Colvin herself said this in November 2010, during a speech to service commerating war reporters who had died in the past decade. She said:

"The need for frontline, objective reporting has never been more compelling. Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, destruction, and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself but often for the people who work closely with you."

And this is why I hope to follow in Marie's footsteps, and in Alex's footsteps. Ever since William Howard Russell uncovered the dire state of the British Army during the Crimea War, war reporters have had a great influence on the public sphere. It is their bravery, resilience and fantastic reportage that brings about change. The need to 'bear witness' as Colvin put it, is so important. The world has to know about war. It may not want to, it may not be interested, but people are dying and truth needs to spoken to power. The Times' front page today sums it up brilliantly, better than I ever could: "The price of truth."

Now it seems Colvin's truth could cause the change that she fought for. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has promised to redouble the efforts to bring down the regime of Assad in Syria. President Sarkozy said that the regime must go. It appears the death of two journalists is the wake-up call the world needed and Assad's house of cards is falling. It is just saddening that it took this long.

The death of the party-hard student

Richard Garner, the Independent's education editor, wrote a piece today where he looks at the change of attitude in university students. As he puts it:

"It used to be about daytime TV, being carried home from bad nightclubs, and halls of residence awash with half-eaten pot noodles and stolen traffic cones, but for the new breed of university student weighed down with the pressures of inflated tuition fees, it's all about business."

The business in question is employment. There is a trend emerging, as students are going to university whilst working full-time jobs. It is a lifestyle that I feel I can talk about, because I am one of these students.

I study journalism at the University of Kent, five days a week, amounting to 18 hours of face-to-face learning. Plus to that, the expected two hours a night in research and reading, my degree is a 30 hour a week course. At the same time, I work as a training duty manager at a local leisure centre. I have set shifts on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as one or two week nights, totalling about 25 - 30 hours in a week, short of the 40 hour mark that is the benchmark for a full-time job.

So why so much work? I am going to be approximately £15,000 in debt by the end of my third year. It is a debt that I do not regret, but my aim is to have enough money that I can strike quite a chunk of that amount off. But that is not the only reason. 

I live 40 minutes away from my university and I have to catch two buses every morning. This is reasonable. But I also have a full driving license. That is the frustrating thing. Ridiculously expensive insurance premiums, averaging about £4,000 a quote, have stopped me from buying a car. A car is not a vanity issue for me; it is not because I am a "GRR PUBLIC TRANSPORT" type. It is just inconvenient when I leave up to an hour before my first lecture and still cannot get there, because a bus is either cancelled or simply does not turn up. And when you are paying £3,000 to be somewhere, you would like to be there. A car is also a valuable thing for a journalist; if your editor tells you to talk to a source within the next hour, and they are not answering their phone/e-mail/messenger pigeon, it is a good tool to have.

Another reason why I choose to work so much is to have money in my pocket. The stereotype is students live off their taxpayer-funded maintenance grants, spending it on what the Indy's Garner described as "bad nightclubs and pot noodles." To be honest, some do. But some do not. Some just get scraps to start with. My own grant is £15 every three months.

Maintenance grants are decided by household income and living at home means mine was dramatically reduced. With an income of about £45,000, I am seen by the government to be in a high-earning household. But this requirement does not take into account outgoings. Simply put, I am poor enough to benefit from government support, through their exclusive grants and bursaries, but too rich to get any of that support from them. That’s a contradiction if I’ve ever seen one.

I admit the tone of this piece is probably making me sound like a whiny, undeserving crybaby with a case of sour grapes. I understand that I am a much better position, financially and socially, than a lot of other people, who really do struggle to make ends meet and fear their next payment of rent or fees. But it is an insight into the various factors and flaws in student finance, from my own personal experience. Take for example, someone I personally know of, who receives a much larger maintanance grant, thousands of pounds worth, by claiming that they live with their unemployed mother. Except their mother lives in another country. And they attend university in the UK. See, flaws.

Saving 9,600 Peacocks

The two girls in this photo work at my local branch of Peacocks. The one on the right is a good friend of mine and has been for 7 years now. Today, she, along with 9,600 others, will go into work unsure of their futures.


Peacocks is a profitable company. In 2011, sales rose by 7.4%, making a profit of £27 million. But it has £240 million pounds worth of debt that has caused the store to go into adminstration. Why so much debt? A management-led buyout led by Richard Kirk in 2005, backed by Goldman Sachs and two private U.S. based hedge funds, saddled the company with enormous debt.


So how do you save Peacocks? The company needs an injection of money, e.g. a buyer. There is speculation than Bon Marche, a women's clothing business owned by Peacocks, will be bought and seperated from its parent company to establish it as an independent brand. Another option being thrown around is for government intervention in stopping RBS, one of Peacock's lenders, from withdrawing support from the company. Liberal Democrat MP, Bob Russell said:


"Is it not the role of government, when it owns the bank, to intervene and can we have a debate?" 


Russell's comments are valid. RBS is owned by the tax-payer after its bailout led to the tax-payer owning an 83% stake in the bank. There is pressure on Business Secretary, Vince Cable to push government intervention and is meeting with Cardiff MPs, where Peacocks is based.


The last option for Peacocks is to adopt the 'John Lewis model.' The model is based on a system, where the company is owned by a trust, operated on behalf of the employees, rather than shareholders. Profit is rewarded to staff in the form of an annual bonus, and effectively create a worker-owned company. For some, this is seen as the way forward for Peacocks. Dr Jonathan Deacon of Newport Business School said to BBC News:


"My ideal would be save this company for Wales, save all those fantastic, innovative, entrepreneurial, creative people in that company. It's got a great management. Why don't we look at an option to think about a workers' buy-out and create another John Lewis? Have a co-operative taking place."


The future is unclear for Peacocks and there is no telling on what will happen. Some jobs have already been lost and the belief is that more will follow. In the mean time, the 9,600 'Peacockers' (what a lovely name) remain hopeful and maybe, just maybe, the company will avoid closure.